Re: Mission Statement

[Oliver Propst <oliver propst gmail com>]

Given the program really have outgrown into something that OPW is no
longer GNOME specific and the administrative burden the program have
become for the foundation I do think splinting out the program
something that should be considered.

I know an organization [1] that have administrative and legal
expertise, maybe they would be interested in govern the program?

1 https://sfconservancy.org/overview/

On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Ekaterina Gerasimova
<kittykat3756 gmail com> wrote:
> On 06/08/2014, Máirín Duffy <duffy fedoraproject org> wrote:
> > On 08/06/2014 11:57 AM, Ryan Lortie wrote:
> > > I was disappointed (but not completely surprised) to learn that,
> > > although OPW has expanded to many projects beyond GNOME, GNOME is left
> > > handling all of the money for all participants at all organisations.
> > > This hasn't only exposed us to substantial financial risks; it has
> > > caused actual financial problems for the project.  This year, GNOME
> > > temporarily ceased funding of hackfests in order to recover from the
> > > cashflow problems caused by the size of OPW.
> >
> > I'm sensing a general lack of information in your post (which should
> > absolutely be provided to you) about the program and its affect on GNOME
> > and its finances, so I thought it would be worth pointing out that GNOME
> > does charge a per-intern administrative fee to each non-GNOME project
> > participating in OPW. So GNOME is far from taking on this extremely
> > helpful and beneficial work without compensation.
>
> GNOME incurs a large amount of banking fees associated with the
> program and it takes up a considerable amount of our administrative
> assistant's time, which is covered by the administrative fee.
> Nonetheless, there is a limited amount of administrative time
> available, which has meant that the board and other Foundation members
> have had to take on unpaid administrative work to keep the Foundation
> afloat. If this had not been done, I dread to think whether GUADEC
> would have been the same.
>
> Regardless, Ryan is correct that poor management of OPW finances has
> resulted in financial difficulties for the Foundation. To expand on
> what he wrote, funding for two separate events was outright rejected,
> which resulted in one event being cancelled. Many Foundation members
> also had their reimbursements delayed by over two months. Luckily,
> those individuals were very supportive and were kind enough to work
> with the board to ensure that those who needed reimbursements fastest
> were the first to receive them.
>
> > > I also came to appreciate during conversations at GUADEC the amount of
> > > time which members of the engagement team, the board, and others are
> > > spending fighting against harmful and distracting messaging from various
> > > corners of the net, and how much OPW has become involved in some of the
> > > stranger criticisms being leveled toward us.  It's no secret that OPW is
> > > controversial, even within the project.  I feel at the very least, it is
> > > a distraction from what should be our core goals.
> >
> > Do you understand that the many -isms that negatively impact GNOME and
> > open source in general do not disappear when you sweep them under the
> > rug? These are not problems that can just be washed away from
> > disengaging OPW from GNOME.
> >
> > > I think that the time has come to split OPW out from the GNOME
> > > foundation.
> >
> > I can't resist saying this:
> >
> > I think GNOME has a lot of problems, and OPW is most certainly NOT one
> > of them.
> >
> > ~m
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-list mailing list
> > foundation-list gnome org
> > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-list mailing list
> foundation-list gnome org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list



-- 
-mvh Oliver Propst